Morning journal and courier., 1887-07-13
CHAmBERLAIN GROWS NERVOUS.

 GROWS NERVOUS. The Young Prisoner 0n Trial For His
 Life Becomes Affected as the End Alp
 prOaches-AbIe Efforts Made by His
 Attorneys to Save Him From The
 GalloWs-EV1dence Brought Forward
 To Show That Killing Was Not Pre-.
 meditated-JudgeS StOddard Makes an
 Impartial Charge to the JurY-TheY
 Remain out Nearly an Hour and Are
 Then Excused Until This Iorning-A
 Possible Verdict for Murder in the
 Second Degree.
 The Superior court room was crowded with spectators all day yesterday who listened to the arguments made for and against Henry B. Cham berlain, the self-eonfessed murderer of Margaret Ernst. Soon after the session con- vened in the morning the State rested it's case, after having put forward strong and convincing evidence. The atmosphere of the court room was not so close as on Friday last, and the case progressed rapidly. It was not expected that all the evidence would be put in yesterday, but such was the ease. The first thing the State did was to recall Dr. M. c. White and he was subjected to 8
  torney Blydenburgh. The doctor adhered to his former statement made many times that her death was caused by suffocation, evil dently brought on by the handkerchiefs placed over her nose and mouth. The red spots on the body told of a sudden death. They were caused by the muscular struggle for breath. The position of the head indi- cated that someone might have sat on 1t. Death sometimes results from the use of chloroform, even when used by experts. After further querying Coroner Eli Mix took the stand and described the position in which the body of the murdered woman lay when found. It was lying on the back somewhat to the left, and some discoloration on the chin and nose, while her tongue was between her teeth, slightly protruding. He was ross-examined in detail. The State here rested and after short recess the defence put Dr. Charles A. Lindsley on the stand. He had formed the opinion that she was first under the influence of ehloroform. He inferred from the fact that she screamed that she revived and that it was not the chloroform that produced death All the evidence pointed toward sui location as the cause of death. The spots indicated it. These spots are found ln oth- CT conditions, but none of these conditions existed. Suffocation was caused by the ex- clusion of air and not from chloroform. Sufocation might, however. have resulted from inclusion of air in the lungs as well as by the exclusion of it.
 Minnie Newstrom was the next and last witness for the defense. She had known Mrs. Ernst for seventeen years. She met her daily and noticed that her nose and chin were crooked and when breathing she made noise similar to a person snoring. Her breathing was heavy and somewhat labored.
 MT. Doolittle cross-examined and tried to introduce photograph of the victim to show that her nose and chin were not bent At- torney Blydenburg objected and Judge Stod- dard upheld him. MT. Doolittle piled the witness with many questions about the vic tim's nose. When shown the photo she thought it was much straighter in the picture than it was on her face. The defence rested at this juncture, having consumed only about thirty minutes. The arguments were at once taken up.
 Attorney Frank A. Kellogg, the State at torney's assistant in the prosecution, opened for the State. He confined himself particu- larly to the laying down the law of murder and told the jury that Chamberlain was guilty of murder in the first degree. He quoted from the statutes to show that mur der perpetrated in the commission of rob- bery was murder in the first degree. The robbery was of evil thought and design con ceived in New York and harbored in mind, the accused coming all the way from New York to successfully carry out their plans. He had no doubt the jury would find after fair consideration verdict in accordance with the law.
 Attorney Harry Asher for the defense fol- lowed in a fine argument. The State, he said, must prove every count. If it fails to prove single part of any count that count falls to the ground. The defendant is charged first with numbering Mrs. Ernst with handkerchiefs; secondly, with murder ing her with chloroform with intent to rob, ha- rx,iTI weapon unknown. The statute did not simply read 'fa homicide committed in the perpetration of felony shall be murder in the first degree" but that murder committed in the commission of felony shall be mur der in the first degree. The word murder in the statute does not necessarily mean murder iu the first degree To make it murder in the first degree it should be something more than mere homicide. In other States the statutes read like our statutes excepting that he word homicide is used where we use murder, and the simple killing of human being in the commission of a felony brings hat killing under murder in the first de- | gree. |
 If there is doubt as to the meaning of I he statute it must be given to the prisoner md not to the State. Our statute reads that ! murder committed in the perpetration of l obbing is murder in the first degree, but l lot killing; and murder and killing are two i liferent terms with different meanings.
 To be murder in the first degree there must l 'e malice implied. The course of the pris- 1 'ner in this case does not imply that he in- ended to murder Mrs. Ernst. He did not fl reat her with violence. This is the cardinal ! 'oint on which the whole case turns. After | he took the chloroform she revived and creamed; he did not pound or kick her, but | merely enveloped her head in a sheet to stop I Ter cries, and being old and feeble unfortu- ,atelV Mrs Ernst died. She did Lot die of chloroform and conse- Luently the prisoner must be found innocent on the second count. Is there was no evidence to prove that Mrs. Ernst was murdered by an unknown weapon he third count must be thrown out. All hat remains is the first count, and you can ot transfer the charge of robbery from one ount to another. A mitigating circumstance ) the youth and ignorance of the prisoner. he prisoner is very young man. He is nly twenty-three years of age and not favor by education and social position, and lcks intelligence, and these circumstances, entlemen, you ought to consider. Lydia herman, who was guilty of premeditated 1urder, received 8 verdict for lesser Of snse from jury because she was weak ! oman, and the same consideration ought to @ given to this young ignorant boy. Re- lember this one simple fact that he did not ltend to kill this woman and if he did not, l len he should not suffer the extreme penalty l the law.
 MT. Asher's plea was generally conceded to @ 8 strong one, it being his maiden effort efore the Superior court. After the noon scess Judge Blydenburgh made the closing l rgument for the defense. In opening he eferred to the painful duty a juryman had ) fulfill in sitting uyon such 8 case as that young Chamberlain.
 "He is not your boy nor mine, but some